Despite his style of expression, I don't think his statements were ever really about the attached lore either. The lore was really an attempt to inspire deeper thoughts that might lead to fascinating mechanics combination. Just as your statements about the mechanics were an attempt to boil them down to base components for the purpose of functionality. For a good game to be made, one needs both that inspiration and that functionality.
------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is or isn't doesn't come down to a simple yes or no question, it depends on what amount of difference these loadouts make. If a game intends on having it so every loadout incorporates "all the tools to win", it doesn't necessarily mean it grants the player the same amount of advantage or disadvantage in every situation.
In other words: Are we talking Possible VS Impossible OR are we talking Optimal VS Sub Optimal (and to what degree)?
This is a very important thing to clarify, as simply having classes/roles/loadouts in a game does not automatically state where things fall on that scale. Having each class/role/loadout offer something unique and interesting doesn't either.
And, as we have established that player's will seek out what is optimal, a game doesn't have to go to the extremes of possible VS impossible for players to care how optimal their class/role/loadout is for any given scenerio.
True to some degree. Though depending on how those are balanced, the player's tendency is also often to take what they most enjoy/most prefer to play as/how they like to approach situations. And depending on what it takes to swap, the player's may choose to swap or not depending on how much of an advantage or disadvantage there happens to be at the time.
As a rule, if a game seeks to create "interesting choices" there has to be some amount of relevance-to-viability-per-approach-and/or-scenario based on what they choose. How big that will be depends on the game in question, but it has to exist to some level. If every choice has the same result, it isn't interesting.
So one has to ask, does the game in question intend to have interesting choices pre-combat, during-combat, or both?
If there is to be some amount of interesting choices pre-combat, there has to be some amount of situationally "better and worse" choices that can be made. While that can lead to newer player's making mistakes (worse choices), it can also lead to those players feeling they earned victory bu either overcoming a disadvantage or learning (the better choice).
Whether that experience is enjoyable or frustrating is largely a matter of how well crafted it all is.
------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it is or isn't doesn't come down to a simple yes or no question, it depends on what amount of difference these loadouts make. If a game intends on having it so every loadout incorporates "all the tools to win", it doesn't necessarily mean it grants the player the same amount of advantage or disadvantage in every situation.
In other words: Are we talking Possible VS Impossible OR are we talking Optimal VS Sub Optimal (and to what degree)?
This is a very important thing to clarify, as simply having classes/roles/loadouts in a game does not automatically state where things fall on that scale. Having each class/role/loadout offer something unique and interesting doesn't either.
And, as we have established that player's will seek out what is optimal, a game doesn't have to go to the extremes of possible VS impossible for players to care how optimal their class/role/loadout is for any given scenerio.
True to some degree. Though depending on how those are balanced, the player's tendency is also often to take what they most enjoy/most prefer to play as/how they like to approach situations. And depending on what it takes to swap, the player's may choose to swap or not depending on how much of an advantage or disadvantage there happens to be at the time.
As a rule, if a game seeks to create "interesting choices" there has to be some amount of relevance-to-viability-per-approach-and/or-scenario based on what they choose. How big that will be depends on the game in question, but it has to exist to some level. If every choice has the same result, it isn't interesting.
So one has to ask, does the game in question intend to have interesting choices pre-combat, during-combat, or both?
If there is to be some amount of interesting choices pre-combat, there has to be some amount of situationally "better and worse" choices that can be made. While that can lead to newer player's making mistakes (worse choices), it can also lead to those players feeling they earned victory bu either overcoming a disadvantage or learning (the better choice).
Whether that experience is enjoyable or frustrating is largely a matter of how well crafted it all is.
